or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccines: more good than harm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccines: more good than harm? - Page 3  

post #41 of 144
Quote:

 1. Infectious disease remains the second leading case of death and the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years worldwide. http://www.vaccines.emory.edu/vaccines/facts.shtml

 

 

What are the stats on this for the U.S./Canada/UK, which is where the vast majority of posters around here live? Do the countries with the highest rates of deaths from infectious disease have access to clean water, food, sanitation, and local health care?

Quote:
2. A study found that many countries experienced pertussis outbreaks when pertussis vaccination programs were suspended due to misinformation. Each country had to reinstate the pertussis vaccine (http://www.fcs.uga.edu/cfd/cdl/docs/vaccines_exemptions.pdf)

 

America has experienced pertussis outbreaks and it has not suspended its vaxx program. The CDC has also stated that the outbreaks are NOT due to a decrease in uptake of the vaxx. The current vaxx simply isn't as effective as the previous version, the disease is cyclical, and there have in fact been false reports of outbreaks - http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/about.html.

post #42 of 144

I found an actual chart on leading causes of death in the US for 1980 and 2010 - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2012/023.pdf

post #43 of 144
Thread Starter 

Yes Wakefield stated that MMR is linked to autism (see reference in first page) in a press conference (look it up), and I didn't say MMR contained thimerosal (go ahead and double check), I said "it was conjectured". It is a common question on CDC's website (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#7). Thanks to Dr Wakefields comments MMR vaccination dropped dramatically. The effect? 2,400% increase in measles by 2008 (again see reference in first page.)

 

Finally you have misquoted me (again). When I referred to changes in autism rate, it was meant that no decrease occurred. A point that you failed to acknowledge that defeats the argument that thimerosal is linked to autism.

 

Still no scientific journal references? Having trouble finding them huh?
 

post #44 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

 

I find it amusing, that at the beginning of this thread I DID NOT mention the conclusions that I had reached. 

 

You didn't have to.  The mistaken assumptions you were making made it quite clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

The Lancet is not funded by pharmaceuticals? Well it's about time the conspiracy theories came in. 

 

 

 

And there is another hugely mistaken assumption of yours:  you assume that anyone who criticizes pharma-funding of watchdog organizations (a hallmark of financial conflict of interest, that) is therefore a conspiracy theorist.   That's hardly an unbiased, objective attitude.

 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/

"Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted. Elsevier is conducting an "internal review" of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the "journal" was corporate sponsored."

 

Elsevier is the publisher of the Lancet.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

 

 

You wrote: "Be aware that the CDC has not studied the subgroup of children who have had seizure reactions to vaccines leading to brain damage/autism,"

 

This is completely wrong!!! These cases ARE REPORTED and taken into consideration. But just because some people reported this and believed it was due to vaccines, DOES NOT mean it really is due to vaccines. You can find the self reporting tool here http://vaers.hhs.gov/index

You can write that you took a vaccine and your nose fell off. It will be recorded. That's not to say, that is proof that the event was actually do to taking the vaccine. They will look into your case and compare it with other reports. When similar cases are reported, a study will be conducted. Just as when thimerosal was blamed on autism and reductions of it didn't decrease autism rates.  And just as the amount of vaccines taken early in life have not been found to be associated to autism risk.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about the subgroup of children whose seizure reactions were reported by their parents.  I'm talking about the subgroup of children who had DOCUMENTED (by mainstream MDs) seizure reactions to vaccines leading to brain damage/autism.  There are many.  There are at least 1200 cases that were admitted and compensated by the US Department of Health and Human Services.  The parents of those children say that they were forced to sign a gag order agreement (many broke that agreement) in order to get their children's medical care paid for.  They also say that their children have never been studied since their court cases, and they have never been interviewed by anyone in research or anyone in the government interested in anything but proving them wrong.  

 

There are thousands of reports of children who were developing normally, who received vaccines, had seizures, severe intestinal problems, and other common disorders, and were never the same.

 

And they have not been studied. In fact, they have been carefully left out of any study that would compare them with neurotypical children receiving the same vaccines.

 

None of them claimed that the child's nose fell off from a vaccine. Your comment there is insulting and extremely inappropriate; it also shows how very biased you are.

post #45 of 144

Actually, there was a decrease in one of the initial thimerosal studies from Denmark.  There is an email that was obtained from one of the researchers, stating that in fact autism rates were going down, and were still going down.

 

The numbers were then tweaked, and his findings were omitted.

 

I'm rushing off to work--can someone please find a link for that for bakunin?


Thanks!

post #46 of 144

bakunin….it is very, clear you are very pro-vax.

 

I suspect you have been pro-vax awhile and this pro-vax stance predates any research for a current article.  This type of conviction does not normally happen overnight. 

 

Is a person who is very clearly in favour of one side or the other able to write an objective piece?  Honestly, I don't think so.  Our beliefs colour things - from which data we select, what emphasis we give it, etc.  I believe this is an issue even if we try our hardest to consider both sides and put aside our personal beliefs.

 

So…does this mean people with strong convictions should not write vaccine articles?  No.  But it does mean people should (IMHO) be upfront about any biases ahead of time.  That is my opinion as someone who reads articles.  I very much appreciate someone who states their background or biases and then writes their article, and I am frankly annoyed by articles which claim to be objective, but it is pretty clear from the outset that they are not.  

post #47 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Yes Wakefield stated that MMR is linked to autism (see reference in first page) in a press conference (look it up), and I didn't say MMR contained thimerosal (go ahead and double check), I said "it was conjectured". It is a common question on CDC's website (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#7). Thanks to Dr Wakefields comments MMR vaccination dropped dramatically. The effect? 2,400% increase in measles by 2008 (again see reference in first page.)

 

Finally you have misquoted me (again). When I referred to changes in autism rate, it was meant that no decrease occurred. A point that you failed to acknowledge that defeats the argument that thimerosal is linked to autism.

 

Still no scientific journal references? Having trouble finding them huh?
 

I thought you could no longer continue with this debate? Did your other commitments fall through?

 

I could not find any reference in the link you provided in the first page in regards to Wakefield stating there was a link between the MMR and autism. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place? The link was to a website on the history of vaccines. 

post #48 of 144
Thread Starter 

@fruitfulmomma: That is a good reference. Notice how total deaths on every age group up to age 24 has gone down by 50% or so. It is generally considered that vaccines in combination with sanitation, medical care and other factors helped reduce mortality from infectious diseases http://www.vaccines.emory.edu/vaccines/facts.shtml

Notice the dramatic decrease in deaths related to meningitis in ages 1-4. Unfortunately it's hard to quantify the effect of vaccines in general with this table. I could only assume that the number of congenital anomalies and respiratory distress deaths of people up to 4y.o has changed because of vaccines from the table. However other references do see for example:

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990803a.html.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rubella/in-short-adult.htm

.

 

Regarding your question "Do the countries with the highest rates of deaths from infectious disease have access to clean water, food, sanitation, and local health care?" The answer is no they don't and that is certainly a big factor. But so is the fact that they have limited access to vaccines. Measles kills the most people in countries in Africa.

 

And yes, the current pertussis vaccine is NOT as effective as a previous version. Still, by the numbers one is still far better off in taking the pertussis vaccine

post #49 of 144

No one is having trouble finding articles. We thought you were excusing yourself, so, no need. 

 

Thimerisol is STILL in annual flu vaxes AND in the time since it has been reduced from the Childhood Schedule, we have doubled and tripled down on the PRENATAL schedule. The CDC maintains that there is NO reason for pregnant women to avoid Flu Shots with Thimerisol.

 

In the H1N1 year, a pregnant woman following the CDC recommendations would have received a whopping 75 mcg (25 each in 2 doses of H1N1 and 1 dose of annual flu). So it is just shifting it around a little. 

 

Thimerisol used to be in Rhogham but there is next to NO chance that a pregnant woman would have ever received 3 Rhogham shots in one pregnancy, so Prenatal Thimerisol exposure continues and in some cases has never been higher. 

 

Go ahead, check my facts, they all come from published information and package inserts.

post #50 of 144

 

You've referenced this webpage at least twice now. Yet, it is not a published study nor a chart of numbers.

 

Quote:

 

Notice how total deaths on every age group up to age 24 has gone down by 50% or so.

 

Notice how deaths from homicides went down too? Obviously you are aware that correlations do not equal causation, so this chart can not in fact be used as proof that vaccination programs resulted in decrease of death. However, if you look at the numbers in 1980 before the mass flu vaxx campaigns, you will notice that the risk of death in a child from both flu and pneumonia was almost nil, which means what risks are we willing to take with vaxxes in order to decrease that very small number even further? How rare is rare for vaxx reactions??? Is this particular website a phenomenon in that we have here dozens of families testifying to vaxx injuries???

post #51 of 144

Here's a good compendium of scientific articles addressing possible issue with vaccine safety.

http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/learn-more/science/

 

This statement is crucial: 

 

 

Quote:
the vaccine debate is not a debate between parents and doctors but rather amongst scientists with opposing views;
post #52 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

 

This statement is crucial: 

 

 

 

That statement is also in my opinion a misrepresentation of the truth. There are a lot of scientists in this world, so you can always find a few who support any viewpoint, no matter how crazy. The vast majority of scientists are all in very clear agreement that vaccines are very safe, and that any risks are massively outweighed by the benefits, both on a community and personal level. 

post #53 of 144

@bakunin - just wanted to say thankyou for hanging in there, and keeping this respectful and about the data. Many of us posting and/or lurking here do not hold strong anti-vaccination viewpoints, and it's refreshing to see those statements opposed with reference to hard data and facts. :) I know it's tiring though. Many people will never be convinced (and that's their right) - it's hard to argue the other side though when your sources are constantly dismissed as being biased and part of a "mass conspiracy funded by big-pharma to hide the truth that the medical profession has been deliberately hurting babies for decades".  Either that or everyone working in the medical profession must be stupid to have missed what's going on....

 

It's a pity really. Big pharma really are evil in many ways, and so are the big food companies, and many other parts of the corporate world. All this anger against vaccination could be used so much more effectively on other issues.... but oh well. 

post #54 of 144

How could an entity that is really 'evil in many ways' produce a product that is saintly? 

 

There are legitimate scientists that are critical of vaccine safety. Don't forget that the Doctor who invented Germ Theory died in an insane asylum after being persecuted by his peers. There is a long standing history of persecution in science & medicine of any who question the current dogma.

 

Dr. Bradley was portrayed as a quack and a radical for saying that our husbands should be allowed in the delivery room, etc.

post #55 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

That statement is also in my opinion a misrepresentation of the truth. There are a lot of scientists in this world, so you can always find a few who support any viewpoint, no matter how crazy. The vast majority of scientists are all in very clear agreement that vaccines are very safe, and that any risks are massively outweighed by the benefits, both on a community and personal level. 

“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”

Albert Einstein
post #56 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

it's hard to argue the other side though when your sources are constantly dismissed as being biased and part of a "mass conspiracy funded by big-pharma to hide the truth that the medical profession has been deliberately hurting babies for decades".  Either that or everyone working in the medical profession must be stupid to have missed what's going on....

 

 

This is unbelievably insulting, disrespectful, and downright hurtful.

 

Nobody here has EVER suggested that the medical profession has been "deliberately hurting babies for decades."  Nobody here has dismissed anybody's views as being "part of a mass conspiracy to hide the truth that the medical profession has been deliberately hurting babies" even for a minute, let alone "for decades."  Nobody here has suggested that everyone working in the medical profession must be stupid to have missed what's going on.

 

And it's funny that you would complain about anyone's dismissing a source for being biased, when you spent quite a lot of time dismissing peer-reviewed, published studies that called vaccine safety into question-- because they came from Lucja Tomljenovic, whom you said was biased.

 

prosciencemum, if you want to discuss things like a big girl, we are all happy to discuss things with you.  If you can't keep from hurling veiled insults, maybe you should not enter the discussion.

 

In the meantime, I would think an edit is in order.  And perhaps an apology as well.

post #57 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Nobody here has EVER suggested that the medical profession has been "deliberately hurting babies for decades."  Nobody here has dismissed anybody's views as being "part of a mass conspiracy to hide the truth that the medical profession has been deliberately hurting babies" even for a minute, let alone "for decades."  Nobody here has suggested that everyone working in the medical profession must be stupid to have missed what's going on.

 

But if your claims that the harm caused by vaccines is widespread are true, there are only really two possibilities... a) Doctors know that this is happening or b) doctors don't know that this is happening.

 

In the first case it implies deliberate harm on the part of doctors as they continue to advocate for and administer vaccines despite their knowledge that they cause widespread damage. In the second case it implies doctors do not have the critical thinking skills that people on this forum have and completely missed the harm being caused (in less gentle terms, they're stupid! :)

 

That was how I interpreted prosciencemum's post personally.


Edited by hushpuppy - 7/18/13 at 7:44pm
post #58 of 144

There is a much more complex explanation involving the cost personally and professionally involved in speaking out against the Dominant Paradigm. Also the way our human brains can ignore any facts that contradict the dominant paradigm (which is what we see when we doctors call most/all reactions, even listed ones 'coincidences'). Doctors individually are NOT at liberty to freely go against the AAP and CDC either . . . They are held not to the Hippocratic Oath but to the Community Standard of Care in courts of law . . .

 

The whole 'so are you calling them liars or fools?!?' gambit is one we see often used in debates around Fluoride. Fluoride can't be harmful, it is said, because then we would be calling all those who support it liars or fools. It is a debate trick that distracts from the real science. Great people can interpret scientific ideas differently. 

 

For example, I am sure there were MANY great and caring doctors that did not accept germ theorey before it was widely accepted (but after the first papers on it were published). It just wasn't the dominant paradigm and most folks are going to go with the dominant paradigm.

 

I think doctors are ALMOST as victimized by the Vax & Pharm & Public Health Industries as patients. They also cannot practice medicine w/o administering vaccines on a daily basis and they can't be expected to decry something that they do day in & day out, or even really think objectively about it. There is too much personal interest @ stake.

 

I study with a MD and she had a post on her FB about the View & Jenny. That post has been taken down. She didn't even express an opinion about the matter, she just gave some space for her students to discuss it, and many of us were in support of free speech and Vax Injured mothers. I am guessing she was told by some other MDs to take it down and did. Even tho she has been writing about this topic for over 20 years, she is still not @ liberty to discuss it openly, as a doctor . . .  

post #59 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

There is a much more complex explanation involving the cost personally and professionally involved in speaking out against the Dominant Paradigm. Also the way our human brains can ignore any facts that contradict the dominant paradigm (which is what we see when we doctors call most/all reactions, even listed ones 'coincidences'). Doctors individually are NOT at liberty to freely go against the AAP and CDC either . . . They are held not to the Hippocratic Oath but to the Community Standard of Care in courts of law . . .

 

The whole 'so are you calling them liars or fools?!?' gambit is one we see often used in debates around Fluoride. Fluoride can't be harmful, it is said, because then we would be calling all those who support it liars or fools. It is a debate trick that distracts from the real science. Great people can interpret scientific ideas differently. 

 

For example, I am sure there were MANY great and caring doctors that did not accept germ theorey before it was widely accepted (but after the first papers on it were published). It just wasn't the dominant paradigm and most folks are going to go with the dominant paradigm.

 

I think doctors are ALMOST as victimized by the Vax & Pharm & Public Health Industries as patients. They also cannot practice medicine w/o administering vaccines on a daily basis and they can't be expected to decry something that they do day in & day out, or even really think objectively about it. There is too much personal interest @ stake.

 

I study with a MD and she had a post on her FB about the View & Jenny. That post has been taken down. She didn't even express an opinion about the matter, she just gave some space for her students to discuss it, and many of us were in support of free speech and Vax Injured mothers. I am guessing she was told by some other MDs to take it down and did. Even tho she has been writing about this topic for over 20 years, she is still not @ liberty to discuss it openly, as a doctor . . .  

 

So do you think it may be a self-protective cognitive mechanism that the doctors themselves are unaware of? That would surprise me since doctors are exposed constantly to both sides of the issue, perhaps more so than any other group. Personally I consider them a reasonably intelligent group, on average, with the capacity to examine their own intrinsic biases. (This is on average, of course, since doctors make up a very large group of people and I’m sure there are examples we can all suggest of individuals who fell into either extreme, either very close minded or very open minded).

 

Or do you think that some (many?) doctors are aware of widespread harm caused by vaccines and choose not to speak out for fear of the personal cost? That would surprise me too, honestly. Most people go into medicine wanting to help people and I can only imagine it would be very distressing for someone with that knowledge to inflict harm day in day out.

post #60 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

But if your claims that the harm caused by vaccines is widespread, there are only really two possibilities... a) Doctors know that this is happening or b) doctors don't know that this is happening.

 

In the first case it implies deliberate harm on the part of doctors as they continue to advocate for and administer vaccines despite their knowledge that they cause widespread damage. In the second case it implies doctors do not have the critical thinking skills that people on this forum have and completely missed the harm being caused (in less gentle terms, they're stupid! :)

 

That was how I interpreted prosciencemum's post personally.

Please quote where someone on this thread said harm was widespread.  Thanks.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccines: more good than harm?